Baseline survey report 2013 final

1,308 views
1,214 views

Published on

Baseline study for the Climate Change, Agriculture and Poverty Alleviation (CCAP) initiative.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,308
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
244
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Baseline survey report 2013 final

  1. 1. Baseline study for theClimate Change, Agriculture and Poverty Alleviation (CCAP) initiative William Nambiza Version: 19th March 2013
  2. 2. Executive summaryThe Climate Change, Agriculture and Poverty alleviation initiative is a project being implemented through apartnership between ActionAid MJUMITA, MVIWATA, TOAM and TFCG with site-level activities in Kilosaand Chamwino Districts. The objective of the project is for Tanzania to be implementing policies andstrategies that prioritise support to small-scale farmers to enable them to improve their livelihoods throughthe adoption of climate smart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management. Theproject is planned to operate for 27 months between 1st October 2012 and 31st December 2014. Theproject is financed through the Accountability in Tanzania climate change funding window.This baseline study was conducted from 14th of December 2012 to 14th of February 2013 in 8 villages inChamwino and Kilosa Districts as well as amongst district and national-level stakeholders. The surveyaimed to document a baseline with regards to the status of project indicators and stakeholders’ progressmarkers and to assess the current uptake of climate-smart, small-scale (C3S) agricultural practices. Thesurvey was carried out by a consultant, William Nambiza.Survey methods included: structured and semi structured interviews; key informant interviews; directobservations and reviewing of reports and documents.The study found that: the level of understanding on climate smart, small-scale agriculture is low amongstmost stakeholders; and few farmers in the project villages have adopted climate smart agriculturaltechniques. Support by the district authority for C3S agriculture is also low in the project villages. Insteadthe district targets ‘modernising’ projects that benefit a few villages each year. MJUMITA and MVIWATAstrategic plans and the District Agricultural Development Plans in both districts have not integrated C3Sagriculture. The survey also found that the National Climate Change Steering Committee does not see thatits role is to promote policy harmonisation in relation to C3S agriculture.In relation to communicating effectively about C3S agriculture, the study found that most stakeholdersexpressed a preference for meetings as a way of communicating C3S agriculture and related activities.The study recommends that there is a need to use multiple methods of communication in order to reach thedifferent stakeholders and that the development of a communication strategy for the project is highlyrecommended.Summary table on baseline status of project indicatorsIndicators Status at project startIntermediate objective Tanzania has developed and is implementing policies and strategies that prioritisesupport to small-scale farmers to enable them to improve their livelihoods through the adoption of climatesmart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management.Intermediate Objective Indicator 1: Currently both districts receive and provide support to small-scaleDistricts are receiving and distributing farmers through their DADP budget from the government andresources to support small-scale from the private sector. Support includes: provision of droughtfarmers to adopt more climate smart resistant seeds and fertilizers. Less support has been directed toagriculture. supporting farmers to adopt C3S agriculture practices.Immediate Objective 1: Small-scale farmers and other stakeholders are demanding the integration ofclimate smart, small-scale agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management in nationalpolicy and policy implementation.Immediate Objective 1 Indicator 1. MJUMITA and MVIWATA have made demands for increasedMJUMITA and MVIWATA Networks support for C3S agriculture through meetings, especially duringmake demands at local, national and annual general meetings, where journalists are welcomed.international level through media and Information from the meetings are believed to be communicatedmeetings for increased support for back to the local and general public by those media. NeitherC3S agriculture and improved natural network has organised more deliberate media campaigns on C3S i
  3. 3. Indicators Status at project startresources governance. agriculture.Immediate objective 2. Government, private sector and civil society are cooperating to support Small-scale farmers to benefit from climate smart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resourcesmanagement.Immediate Objective 2 Indicator 1. Both Kilosa and Chamwino districts are currently involvingTwo districts demonstrate multi- different stakeholders; especially in agricultural activities planning.stakeholder coordination in support of This has been done through district agriculture stakeholderC3S agriculture meetings. Both Districts are collaborating with the private sector and there is one example of this linking to strategies aimed at increasing resilience to climate change.Output 1: Two national networks of community groups are advocating for climate smart agricultural landmanagement at national and local levels.Output Indicator 1.1 MJUMITA and MJUMITA strategic plan does not currently state explicit supportMVIWATA institutional strategies for small-scale farmers. The plan does state a commitment tointegrate small-scale farmers and integrate communities living adjacent to forest reserves to fullyclimate change mitigation and participate and equitably benefit from forest management. Inadaptation. terms of climate change, the MJUMITA strategy focuses on assisting communities to engage in REDD. The MVIWATA strategic plan integrates small-scale farmers through lobbying and advocacy for their rights and by helping them to access improved value chains (markets). To integrate climate change, mitigation and adaptation, the plan envisages mainstreaming climate change in MVIWATA programmes and creating adequate awareness to members. Details on how communities will be helped to mitigate and adapt to climate change are not specified.Output Indicator 1.2 At least 500 In the two MJUMITA networks in the study area, 35% of membersnetwork members and network had participated in C3S agriculture training.leaders trained in C3S agriculture and In the two MVIWATA groups available in the study area, 38% ofclimate change mitigation and members reported that they have participated in C3S agricultureadaptation. training. The national MJUMITA chairman has participated in some of the C3S agriculture practices training. He had also participated in some climate change mitigation and adaptation training. The national MJUMITA secretary has not participated in C3S agriculture training but has attended seminars and workshops with some C3S agriculture practices and climate change mitigation and adaptation. The national MVIWATA chairperson has participated in C3S agriculture training and on climate change mitigation and adaptation.Output 3: Small-scale farmers in three agro-ecological zones provide a forum for learning and knowledgeexchange on best practice in terms of climate-smart agriculture and support for C3S agriculture isintegrated in District plans.Output Indicator 3.1 360 farmers are 21% of small-scale farmers are implementing at least 1 C3Smodelling best practice in climate agricultural practice in the 3 Kilosa study villages; and 27% in thesmart, small-scale agriculture by end Chamwino study villagesof Y3Output Indicator 3.2 10,000 farmers 10% of the small-scale farmers have participated in C3Shave learned at first-hand about C3S agriculture trainings in Kilosa study villages. No farmers hadagriculture and are integrating key participated in C3S agriculture training in Chamwino studyelements of C3S agriculture on their villages. However, 21% of farmers in Kilosa and 27% in ii
  4. 4. Indicators Status at project startfarms. Chamwino are integrating some of the C3S agriculture on their farms.Output Indicator 3.3 Farmers in 6 No farmers in any of the study villages stated that they havevillages have improved access to accessed agriculture credit for adding value to his/her agricultureagricultural credit and support for produce.adding value to their agriculturalproduce.Output Indicator 3.4 5 million 20% of small-scale farmers in Chamwino and 17% in Kilosa studyfarmers have received practical villages stated that they have received practical information oninformation on measures that they measures to improve their resilience to climate change.can take to improve their resilience toclimate change.Output Indicator 3.5 45 community There are 11 community based trainers in the Kilosa studytrainers trained on C3S agriculture. villages that have been trained on C3S agriculture. There are no community trainers in Chamwino study villages that have been trained on C3S agriculture.Status of progress markers for priority stakeholders at project baselineProgress Marker Status of progress marker at baselineSmall-scale farmersExpect to seeSmall-scale farmers participate in 6% of small scale farmers in Kilosa and 3% of farmers intraining and awareness raising events Chamwino stated that they have participated in climaterelated to climate change, climate change training. 10% (all from Kilosa) of respondents statedsmart agriculture, land tenure, micro- that they have participated in C3S agriculture training. 4% offinance and REDD+. small-scale farmers in Chamwino and 2% in Kilosa stated that they have participated in land tenure training. 5% of small- scale farmers stated that they have participated in microfinance training and 6% of respondents from the Kilosa study villages stated that they have received REDD trainings.Farmers in project villages implement There are farm field schools in Kisongwe, Lunenzi and IbinguC3S agriculture in their farm field villages in Kilosa. These were established by the TFCG andschools and communicate results to MJUMITA REDD project. 0 farmer field schools were reportedother farmers during farmers’ days to be in existence in the Chamwino study villages. 0and with local and national media respondents reported any communication of C3S agriculturewhere organised by the project. practices results to other farmers during farmer’s days and with local media.Farmers in project villages are Farmers in Kisongwe and Ibingu villages are displaying C3Sdisplaying information about climate agriculture, land tenure and REDD information throughchange, C3S agriculture, land tenure posters. There is no displayed information with regards to theand REDD. above issues in Lunenzi and Lumbiji village. Land tenure and agroforestry information was being displayed in Nzali and Chinangali I respectively.Like to seeSmall-scale farmers including both 8% of women and 9% of men in the study villages arewomen and men in the project applying on-farm and off-farm climate-smart techniques tovillagers are applying on-farm and off- their own livelihood activities.farm climate-smart techniques to theirown livelihood activities including iii
  5. 5. Progress Marker Status of progress marker at baselinefarmers not involved in the project-supported training events.Small-scale farmers in project villages 16% of the small-scale farmers stated that they are advocatingare advocating elected elected representatives and government officers forrepresentatives and government improvements in governance in relation to land, naturalofficers for improvements in resource and agriculture. Some of the strategies that weregovernance in relation to land, natural described by respondents include: reporting those who misuseresources and agriculture. their offices to the higher authorities, not electing them in the forthcoming elections and removing them from their post.Small-scale farmers from project 15% of farmers are building capacities of farmers in othervillages are building the capacity of villages on C3S agriculture and sustainable land and naturalfarmers from other villages and resource management. 0 farmers reported that they aredistricts on C3S agriculture, REDD+ building the capacity of other farmers in other villages onand sustainable land and natural REDD. Respondents mentioned the following strategies toresources management. share information on C3S agriculture with farmers in other villages: informal meetings and visiting other farmers at home and on their farms.Love to seeSmall-scale farmers from non-project 0 farmers in the non-project village reported that they hadvillages adopt climate smart adopted C3S agricultural technologies using the experienceagricultural technologies using the and guidelines shared by the CCAP project.experiences and guidelines shared bythe project.Small-scale farmers from non-project Small scale farmers in the non-project villages are not activelyvillages actively advocate at village, advocating at village, district and national level for moredistrict and national level for more sustainable land and natural resources management.sustainable land and naturalresources management.Small-scale farmers actively engage 5% per cent of small-scale farmers are involved with thewith their local MJUMITA and MJUMITA network; and 5% of farmers are engaging withMVIWATA networks to lobby for more MVIWATA groups to lobby for more support for C3Ssupport for C3S agriculture, REDD agriculture, REDD and sustainable land and natural resourcesand sustainable land and natural management.resources management.MJUMITA and MVIWATA Community networksExpect to seeNational-level community network Both MJUMITA and MVIWATA national leaders are aware ofleaders have a firm understanding of the linkage that exists between climate change, C3Sthe linkages between climate change, agriculture and sustainable land and natural resourceC3S agriculture and sustainable land management. Their descriptions generally focus on howand natural resources management. climate change affects agriculture; how forests are affected by low agricultural yields and how reduced conservation effort results in climate changes and low agricultural yields.National-level community network MJUMITA national network leaders are currently providingleaders are providing information to information through their zonal members in areas wheretheir members on the linkages MJUMITA has projects. Currently C3S has beenbetween climate change, C3S communicated by the national leaders to 9 networks inagriculture and sustainable land and Usambara and Kilosa. MVIWATA shares information onnatural resources management. climate change through their field officers. 34 MVIWATA groups in Kyela, Arusha, Monduli, Rudewa and in Mvomero iv
  6. 6. Progress Marker Status of progress marker at baseline have received information on climate change from their national leadersLike to seeAt national level, community networks Climate change issues are reflected in the MJUMITA andhave integrated climate change MVIWATA strategies. The MJUMITA strategy is primarilyissues in their institutional strategies focused on mitigation. The MVIWATA strategy is primarilyand are providing training, user- focused on adaptation. Both networks have provided trainingfriendly guides and other support to to a few of their members on climate change in general.their members to adopt C3S MJUMITA have provided more detailed training to some of itsagriculture, REDD+ and other climate members on REDD.smart strategies.Local level community networks are 25% of MJUMITA network members and 16 % of MVIWATAaware of climate change, C3S members in the study area are aware of climate change. 30agriculture and are sharing this % of MJUMITA members and 37 % of MVIWATA membersinformation with others in their stated that they were aware of C3S agriculture. 65 % ofcommunities. MJUMITA members and 5 % of MVIWATA members in the study villages share this information with other farmers.Community networks are regularly MJUMITA and MVIWATA leaders are currently not regularlyconsulted by policy makers on climate consulted by policy makers to provide recommendation tochange related issues and provide Kilimo Kwanza ASDP and SAGCOTrecommendations to Kilimo Kwanza,ASDP and SAGCOTCommunity networks are advocating MJUMITA and MVIWATA members have not demandedat local, national and international support for C3S agriculture, community-oriented REDD andlevel through media, meetings and other climate smart strategies through the media. Howeverother forums for more support for C3S demands have been made in their annual general meetingsagriculture, community-oriented but this has been on C3S agriculture and none of the farmersREDD and other climate smart interviewed had made demand for REDD. However atstrategies. national level MJUMITA have been active in working with the media to advocate for an equitable approach to REDD.Love to seeCommunity networks are recognised MJUMITA were invited to participate in the National REDDas leaders in climate change Task Force’s technical working group on REDD standards;adaptation and mitigation and are and MVIWATA have been invited to participate in consultationinvited to participate in policy on the draft Agricultural Strategy.formulation, monitoring andevaluation forums at national andinternational level.Community networks hold elected 50% of MJUMITA network members and 11% of MVIWATArepresentatives at local and national group members reported that they are holding electedlevel accountable for the quality of the representatives at local level accountable for the quality of thesupport that network members are support that the network members are receiving for climatereceiving for climate change change adaptation and mitigation.adaptation and mitigation.Community networks in Tanzania No evidence of this was recorded.share their knowledge on appropriate,climate change adaptation andmitigation strategies with communitiesin other countries. v
  7. 7. Progress Marker Status of progress marker at baselineDistrict OfficialsExpect to seeDistrict Officials participate in The Chamwino District Executive Director, the District Forestawareness raising events about Officer, the District Livestock and Fisheries Officer have notClimate Change, REDD and participated in climate change and REDD awareness raisingAgriculture. events. The District Agriculture and Cooperative Societies Officer have participated in climate change awareness raising events but not in REDD events. All of the District staff interviewed, with the exception of the Forest Officer, stated that they have participated in agriculture awareness raising events and said that it is part and parcel of their work The Kilosa District Agriculture Officer and the District Executive Director stated that they have not participated in climate change awareness raising events. The agriculture officer has participated in REDD awareness raising events organised by the TFCG and MJUMITA REDD project. Both the agriculture officer and the district executive director have participated in agriculture awareness raising events. The District Forest Officer has participated in both climate change and REDD awareness raising events. In all districts, district officials are willing to participate in awareness raising events about Climate Change, REDD and Agriculture.District officials integrate climate Kilosa is not integrating climate friendly agriculture in theirfriendly agriculture in their DADPs DADPs although they have been participating in thewhere external support is provided. conservation agriculture training provided by TFCG as part of the TFCG and MJUMITA REDD project. Chamwino have been generating drought resistant sorghum based on a project receiving FAO support.District Officials support integration of Community plans are supposed to be integrated in DADPs bycommunity plans in DADPs where using the O&OD (opportunity and obstacle to development)external support is provided. methods however the formulation of these plans rarely follows the participatory approach intended and the budget does not always reflect the priorities cited by the communities.Like to seeDistrict Government are providing In both district there are delays in the delivery of DADPDADP guidelines that include issues guidelines to ward and village level. This is caused by delaysof climate-friendly agriculture and in the delivery of funds from the government.gender to all wards and villages in atimely manner; are ensuring that the Gender is considered in agriculture related training, projects,ward and village level facilitation planning, decision-making and implementation.teams are developing plans thatadequately support climate friendly In both Chamwino and Kilosa, district officials stated that it isagriculture; and these are properly through environmental and social management frameworksreflected in the District level plans and that the environmental impact of their DADPs projects areare then implemented. assessed. However, the ESMF does not cover small-scale initiatives vi
  8. 8. Progress Marker Status of progress marker at baselineDistrict government are raising In Chamwino, District Officials organise village assemblyawareness about climate change, meetings that cover agriculture, environmental conservationclimate-friendly agriculture and and good animal husbandry.gender amongst communities in theirdistricts. In Kilosa, through the land, environment and natural resource committee, District Officials have been raising awareness about climate change and climate friendly agriculture, however this has been conducted in line with other issue in the villages and there have not been specific awareness raising events on climate change and climate smart, small-scale agriculture.Love to seeSupport for best practices in terms of No evidence of this was recorded in either District.supporting climate change resilientand low GHG agriculture areintegrated in DADPs and adequatefunds are disbursed for theirimplementation.District government are supporting In Chamwino, the District have supported tree planting (6000communities to implement actions trees were planted in 2012); and are enforcing laws to protectthat will reduce deforestation and are reserves from deforestation for agriculture.assisting communities to accessREDD finance. Kilosa district officials stated that they have been conducting patrols in forest reserves and providing education to forest adjacent communities on the impact of deforestation and bushfire. On helping communities to access REDD finance, they are collaborating with TFCG/MJUMITA in their REDD project to learn the process and perhaps start running and claiming for REDD finances to the needy communitiesDistrict government take action There have been efforts to address corruption issues in theagainst individuals engaging in two districts. Some Village Executive Officers have been firedcorrupt practices that undermine and charged in the court of law for misusing public funds inefforts to promote pro-poor, climate- Chamwino and Kilosa. The two districts are also working infriendly agriculture. close collaboration with the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) to address corruption in the district.Elected representativesExpect to seeElected representatives participate in In Chamwino District, the Chilonwa ward councillor stated thatawareness raising days and he has not participated in any awareness raising events orstakeholder meetings on small-scale stakeholder meetings on small-scale agriculture and climateagriculture and climate change when change but he underscored that he is willing to participate as itexternal support is provided. is one of his responsibilities to cooperate with development partners in the area of his jurisdiction. In Kilosa, both the Lumbiji and Lumuma ward councillors have participated in agriculture and climate related awareness raising events and meetings organised by REDD project in Kilosa. Both Kilosa and Chilonwa Members of Parliaments have not participated in awareness raising days and vii
  9. 9. Progress Marker Status of progress marker at baseline stakeholder meetings on climate change issue but have been participating in agriculture awareness raising events. They are willing to participate in awareness raising events.Elected representatives make No evidence of this was recorded in either District.statements to the media to demandmore support for small scale farmersand sustainable land and naturalresources management.Like to seeMPs raise questions about climate No evidence of this was recorded in either District.change steering committeeeffectiveness and the integration ofsupport for small-scale farmers incurrent agricultural policies (DADPs,SAGCOT, Kilimo Kwanza) includingreferences to Tanzania’scommitments under the MaputoDeclaration.Ward Councillors and Village council No evidence of this was recorded in either District.members push for DADPs to integratesupport for small scale, climate smartagriculture.Ward councillors push District Both Wards stated that they have pushed for timely support forOfficials to expedite and prioritise their electorate in relation to DADPs.support for small-scale farmers in theimplementation of DADPs.Love to seeMPs make changes to national CC No evidence of this was recordedrelated policies to reflect the interestsof communities and Small-scalefarmersElected leaders monitor and follow up No evidence of this was recordedon the implementation of nationalpolicies and laws relating to small-scale farmers and climate changeadaptation and mitigation.National Climate Change Steering Committee and National Climate Change TechnicalCommitteeExpect to seeThe NCCSC and the NCCTC meet at NCCSC and the NCCTC had two (2) meetings in 2012,least twice per year including three (3) meetings in 2011 and one (1) in 2010. It wasrepresentatives from MNRT, PMO further revealed that the NCCSC and NCCTC areRALG, MAFS and VPO DoE; civil designated to hold their meetings concurrently, whereby thesociety organisations; research NCCTC sits first and thereafter inform the NCCSC in itsinstitutions and private sector. meetingRepresentatives from NCCSC / TC NCCSC/TC does not organize any media events toparticipate in media events on climate promote climate friendly agriculture. However, NCCSC/TCfriendly agriculture. has been participating in media events through sending its viii
  10. 10. Progress Marker Status of progress marker at baseline experts upon invitation to various media eventsLike to SeeNCCSC representatives participate in NCCSC is willing to send representatives to the eventscivil society events related to linkages related to linkage between small-scale agriculture, climatebetween Small-scale agriculture, climate change and REDD. NCCST/SC representativeschange and REDD. participated in the IUCN hosted workshop to develop a national strategy on gender and climate change was conducted in September 2011.NCCSC and NCCTC consider policy No evidence of this was recordedharmonisation in relation to CCmitigation and adaptation includingissues around Small-scale agricultureand REDD.NCCSC host meetings for communities, Development of national REDD+ involved a series ofcivil society, local government, research awareness meetings and consultation meetings in differentinstitutions and private sector to provide areas in Tanzania from local level, district level, andinputs on the National Climate Change regional level and at national level where differentstrategy, NAPA and REDD + strategies. stakeholders were consulted for their inputs. Consultation meetings for the national climate change strategy were held in the Lake and Southern Highland zones.Gender issues are well covered in key The national REDD+ strategy emphasizes gender to beplans including the National REDD+ considered in its implementation.strategy and NCCS.NCCTC advise MAFS on measures NCCTC is structured to provide technical assistance toneeded to ensure that the ASDP individual sectors and in most cases the NCCTC adviseseffectively promotes pro-poor, climate those sectors (including agriculture sector) through differentchange mitigation and adaptation. strategies (e.g. national climate change strategy) and guidelines.NCCTC approves information resources NCCTC has not approved any information as this is doneon climate friendly agriculture for through the Policy and Regulatory framework in thedistribution to Local Government with the agriculture sector. The agriculture ministry is implementingDADP guidelines. the Environmental Management Act - Implementation Support Programme (EMA-ISP) through its environmental management unit where this approval is channelled.Love to seeThe NCCSC is demanding the allocation No evidence of this was recorded. It was stated that thisof 10 % of the national budget for would be inappropriate behaviour for the NCCSC.climate-friendly agriculture in ways thatdirectly contribute to achieving MDGs.The NCCSC is supporting the NCCFP to The NCCSC has not supported the national climate changebe a role model for other countries in the focal point to be a role model for other countries in theintegration of climate friendly agriculture integration of climate friendly agriculture in nationalin NAMAs, NAPAs and REDD appropriate mitigation actions, national adaptation programme for action and reduction of emission from deforestation and degradation ix
  11. 11. Table of contentsExecutive summary ............................................................................................................................................... iTable of contents ................................................................................................................................................. xList of figures ..................................................................................................................................................... xiiList of tables ..................................................................................................................................................... xivAcknowledgements............................................................................................................................................ xv1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background information ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives of the study ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Data collection .................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Sampling strategies ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Data analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 53. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 General information on village-level surveys .................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Age composition of respondents in Kilosa and Chamwino study villages ..................................... 6 3.1.2 Education level of respondents ............................................................................................................ 7 3.1.3 Respondents’ economic activities ...................................................................................................... 10 3.1.4 Main crops grown by small-scale farmers ........................................................................................ 11 3.2 Baseline situation of project’s indicators and priority stakeholder progress markers .................................... 14 3.2.1 Baseline situation of project indicators .............................................................................................. 14 3.2.2 Baseline situation of project stakeholder progress markers .......................................................... 28 3.2.2.1 Small - Scale Farmers ..................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.2.2 MVIWATA and MJUMITA members .............................................................................................. 39 3.2.2.3 District Officials ................................................................................................................................. 50 3.2.2.4 Ward councillors and Members of Parliament ............................................................................. 53 3.2.2.5 Nation Climate Steering Committee and National Climate Change Technical Committee (NCCSC/NCCTC) ............................................................................................................................................. 55 3.2.2.6 Village council members ................................................................................................................. 57 3.3 Current knowledge of and uptake of climate smart, small-scale agriculture and other livelihood initiatives 64 3.4 Communication preference for the project’s priority stakeholders ................................................................ 654. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 68References......................................................................................................................................................... 69Activity report ................................................................................................................................................... 70Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Appendix i: Terms of Reference................................................................................................................................... 71 Appendix ii. Small-scale farmers’s questionnaires ...................................................................................................... 74 x
  12. 12. Appendix iii. MJUMITA local areas network members’ questionnaire ....................................................................... 82Appendix iv. MVIWATA members’ questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 86Appendix v. Village Council members’ questionnaire ................................................................................................. 90Appendix vi. Ward councillors and Members of Parliament checklist questions ........................................................ 94Appendix vii. Checklist questions for District Officials................................................................................................. 95Appendix viii. Checklist for National MJUMITA and MVIWATA leaders ..................................................................... 96Appendix ix. Checklist questions for National Climate Change Technical and Steering Committee Chairperson ...... 97Appendix x. Checklist questions for community trainers ............................................................................................ 98Appendix xi. Village profiles ........................................................................................................................................ 99Appendix xii. The list of respondents interviewed and administered questionnaires ............................................... 105Appendix xiii. Wealth ranking indicators .................................................................................................................. 110 xi
  13. 13. List of figuresFigure 1. Map showing location of Chamwino district in Dodoma and Kilosa District in Morogoro Region. .... 2Figure 2. Map of Chamwino District showing location of Mahama, Nzali, Manchali and Chinangali I villages3Figure 3. Map of Kilosa district showing location of Kisongwe, Lumbiji, Lunenzi and Ibingu villages .............. 3Figure 4. Age composition of respondents in Chamwino study villages (n = 89)................................................. 6Figure 5. Age composition of respondents in Kilosa study villages (n = 110) ...................................................... 6Figure 6. Education composition of the respondents in Chamwino study villages (n = 89) ............................... 7Figure 7. Education compositions of the respondents in Kilosa study villages (n = 110) ................................... 7Figure 8. Education level of the interviewed female in Chamwino study villages (n = 42) ................................. 8Figure 9. Education level of the interviewed women in Kilosa study villages (n = 50) ........................................ 9Figure 10. Education level to the interviewed male in Kilosa study villages (n = 59) .......................................... 9Figure 11.Education level of the interviewed male in Chamwino study villages (n = 48) ................................. 10Figure 12 Economic activities of respondents in Chamwino study villages (n = 90) ......................................... 10Figure 13. Economic activities of the respondents in Kilosa study villages (n = 109) ....................................... 11Figure 14. Crops grown by farmers in Kilosa study villages (n = 40) ................................................................... 12Figure 15. Crops grown by farmers in Chamwino study villages (n = 40) ........................................................... 12Figure 16. Agro-Ecological Zones of Tanzania (Source: Blinker, 2006).............................................................. 13Figure 17. Kilosa and Chamwino village leaders responses on whether they have received any support for C3S agriculture from the District ........................................................................................................................ 16Figure 18. Kinds of supports reported to be provided by the Kilosa and Chamwino districts to the village leaders in the study villages................................................................................................................................ 16Figure 19. Support received by the village leaders at village level to adopt climate smart agriculture ........... 17Figure 20. Small-scale farmers’ responses on whether they have received support from the district to adopt more C3S agriculture in Kilosa and Chamwino study villages ...................................................................... 17Figure 21. Small-scale farmers who received support from the district to support adoption of C3S agriculture .............................................................................................................................................................. 18Figure 22. Small scale farmers responses on whether they have participated in C3S training in Kilosa and Chamwino study villages ..................................................................................................................................... 23Figure 23. Current C3S agriculture practices at a village level ............................................................................. 25Figure 24. Current C3S agriculture practices at a village level ............................................................................. 26Figure 25. Small scale farmers responses on whether they have received practical information for climate change resilience.................................................................................................................................................. 27Figure 26. Small scale farmers’ responses on whether they have received practical information to take to increase their resilient to climate change ......................................................................................................... 27Figure 27. Farmers’ responses on whether they participated in training or awareness raising about climate change in Kilosa and Chamwino study villages (n=80) .................................................................................. 28Figure 28. Farmers who have participated and not participated in land tenure training and awareness raising meetings (n=80) ....................................................................................................................................... 30Figure 29. Farmers who reported to have and not have attended trainings and awareness meetings on microfinance .......................................................................................................................................................... 31Figure 30. Women’s responses on implementation of C3S agriculture practices in the study villages .......... 33Figure 31. Men’s responses on implementation of C3S agriculture practices in the study villages ................ 33Figure 32. Small-scale farmers responses on whether they have made any effort to address good governance from their elected representatives ............................................................................................... 34Figure 33. MJUMITA members’ response on whether they have heard climate change (n = 20) .................. 40Figure 34. MVIWATA members’ response on whether they have heard climate change (n= 19) .................. 40Figure 35. UMILUI and UMIKIM members’ responses on whether they have heard climate change (n=10 for each network) ....................................................................................................................................................... 41Figure 36. JUHUDI and MSHIKAMANO group members’ response on whether they have heard about climate change ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 xii
  14. 14. Figure 37. MJUMITA members response on how they describe climate change (n = 20) ............................... 42Figure 38. MVIWATA members’ response on how they describe climate change (n =19) .............................. 42Figure 39. MJUMITA members’ response on the causes of climate change (n =20)........................................ 43Figure 40. MVIWATA network members’ response on the causes of climate change (n = 19) ...................... 43Figure 41. MJUMITA members’ response on the impacts of climate change (n = 20) ..................................... 44Figure 42. MVIWATA members’ response on the impacts of climate change (n = 19) .................................... 44Figure 43. MJUMITA members’ response on whether they have heard C3S (n=20) ....................................... 44Figure 44. MVIWATA members’ response on whether they have heard C3S (n=19)....................................... 45Figure 45. MJUMITA members’ responses on how they describe C3S agriculture .......................................... 45Figure 46.MJUMITA members’ responses on how they describe C3S agriculture ........................................... 46Figure 47. MJUMITA members’ responses on whether they share climate change, C3S agriculture information with others in the communities ...................................................................................................... 46Figure 48. MVIWATA members’ responses on whether they share climate change, C3S agriculture information with others in the communities ...................................................................................................... 47Figure 49. MJUMITA members’ responses on whether there do exist opportunities for them to share information to communities in other countries ................................................................................................. 50Figure 50. MVIWATA members’ responses on whether is any opportunity for them to share information to communities in other countries .......................................................................................................................... 50Figure 51. Village council members’ responses on whether they have heard about climate change (n=80) 58Figure 52. Village council members’ response at a village level on whether they have heard about climate change ................................................................................................................................................................... 58Figure 53. Village council member’s response of how they describe climate change (n = 80) ....................... 59Figure 54. Village council member’s responses at village level on how they describe climate change ......... 59Figure 55. Village council member’s responses on awareness of climate change adaptation in Kilosa and Chamwino study villages ..................................................................................................................................... 61Figure 56. Issues that were covered to village council members who reported to have attended C3S awareness raising in both Kilosa and Chamwino ............................................................................................ 62Figure 57. Issues that were covered to village council members who attended climate change awareness meeting in Kilosa and Chamwino study villages ............................................................................................. 63Figure 58. Communication preference in MJUMITA and MVIWATA ................................................................... 67 xiii
  15. 15. List of tablesTable 1. Comparison of education level of three villages in Chamwino (n = 20 for each village) ........................................ 8Table 2. Comparison of education level of three villages in Kilosa (n = 25 for each village) ................................................ 8Table 3. Businesses practiced by respondents in the study villages ..................................................................................... 11Table 4. MJUMITA members’ on whether they have attended trainings on climate change adaptation .......................... 21Table 5. Climate smart, small - scale agriculture practices currently applied by small-scale farmers in Kilosa study villages (n = 40 for each district). ........................................................................................................................................ 22Table 6. Climate smart, small - scale agriculture practices currently applied by small-scale farmers in Chamwino study villages (n = 40 for each district). ........................................................................................................................................ 22Table 7. Farmers who have participated in training or awareness raising about climate change at the village level (n =10 for each village) .............................................................................................................................................................. 29Table 8. Small-scale farmers responses on whether they have participated in C3S agriculture trainings ...................... 29Table 9. Small scale-farmers responses on whether they have participated in awareness raising about land tenure in the study villages (n = 10 for each village) ........................................................................................................................ 30Table 10. Small-scale farmers responses on whether they have participated in microfinance training ........................... 31Table 11. Small-scale farmers responses on whether they have partcipated in REDD training ....................................... 31Table 12. Small-scale framers’ responses of information that are displayed by farmers in the study villages ................ 32Table 13. Small-scale farmers’ responses on whether they have taken any action to address good governance from their elected representatives ................................................................................................................................................ 34Table 14. Responses of farmers on building capacity of other farmers in other villages on C3S, REDD and NRM ...... 35Table 15. Small scale-farmers responses on whether they are building capacity to farmers in other villages on C3S agriculture, REDD, and natural resource management ................................................................................................... 35Table 16. Farmers current C3S agriculture practices in the control villages ........................................................................ 36Table 17.Small-scale farmerss responses in the non-project villages on issue that address sustainable land and natural resources management........................................................................................................................................... 37Table 18. Small scale farmers responses on whether they have heard the existence of MJUMITA (n=10 for each village) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37Table 19. Small scale farmers responses on whether they have heard the existence of MJUMITA (n=10 for each village) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 38Table 20. Small-scale farmers responses on whether they are engaging with local MJUMITA network (n= 10 for each village) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 38Table 21. Small-scale farmers responses on whether they are engaging with local MVIWATA network (= 10 for each village) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 38Table 22. MVIWATA group members’ responses on whether they have ever demanded C3S agriculture, community oriented REDD and natural resource management through media and meetings (n = 19) ....................................... 48Table 23. MJUMITA network members’ responses on whether they have ever demanded C3S agriculture, community oriented REDD and natural resource management through media and meetings (n = 20) ....................................... 48Table 24. MVIWATA members responses on whether they are holding responsible elected representatives ............... 49Table 25. MVIWATA members responses on whether they are holding responsible elected representatives ............... 49Table 26. Village council member’s responses on the causes of climate change in the study villages............................ 60Table 27. Village council members’ responses on the impacts of climate change in study villages ................................ 60Table 28. Village council member’s responses on awareness of climate change adaptation at village level .................. 61Table 29. Village council member’s response on the link of climate change, agriculture and poverty ............................. 62Table 30. Issues that were covered to village council members at village level who reported to ...................................... 63Table 31. Issues that were covered to village council members who attended climate awareness .................................. 64Table 32. Farm preparation methods to the interviewed farmers ........................................................................................... 65Table 33. Fire management methods by those who reported to use fire in their farm preparations ................................. 65Table 34. Small scale farmers’ preference on communication methods ............................................................................... 67 xiv
  16. 16. AcknowledgementsI am grateful to the Accountability in Tanzania (Act) for funding this study. I sincerely thank Nike Doggart forher constructive criticism and comments when planning the work and during the report write-up. I alsothank Bakari Mongo, the TOAM field project officer in Chamwino and the TFCG REDD project team inKilosa namely Mr. Shadrack Yoash Nyungwa, Mr Emmanuel Lyimo, Mr. Enos and Mr Hassan Chikira fortheir assistance when carrying out this study.More thanks go to Mahama, Nzali, Chinangali I, Manchali A, Kisongwe, Lumbiji, Lunenzi and Ibingu villagecouncils for allowing me to conduct this study in their villages and to small scale farmers from the samevillages for participating in this study.Moreover, I acknowledge cooperation from the Chairman of the National Climate Change Committee(Director of Environment in Vice President Office) Dr. Julius Ningu, the Chamwino Executive Director Mr.Adrian Jungu, the Kilosa Executive Director Mr. Lameck M. Masembejo, the Kilosa Member of ParliamentHon. Mustafa Mkulo, Chilonwa Member of Parliament Hon. Ezekiah Chibulunje and Lumbuji, Lumuma, andChilonwa Ward Councils.I received great collaboration from my assistants Mr. David Maleko and Mr. Njabha Lyatura. Assistance inadministering questionnaires that was provided by my enumerators was so supportive to easy the datacollection exercise. Lastly I would like to thank all who participated in this study and to those who in oneway or another helped the completion of the study. xv
  17. 17. List of acronymsASDP Agriculture Sector Development ProgrammeC3S Climate Smart, Small-Scale AgricultureCC Climate ChangeCCA Climate Change AdaptationCCAP Climate change, Agriculture and Poverty AlleviationCMA Climate Change Mitigation and AdaptationCSO Civil Societies OrganizationsDADPs District Agriculture Development PlansDCT/DSC Diocese of Central TanganyikaDED District Executive DirectorDEMAT Dodoma Environmental ManagementDFO District Forest OfficerDFT District Facilitation TeamDoE Division of EnvironmentDONET Dodoma Environmental NetworkESMF Environmental and Social Management FrameworkFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationGHG Greenhouse GasesGIS Geographic Information SystemINADES INADES Formation TanzaniaIPCC International Panel on Climate ChangeITV Independent TelevisionMJUMITA Mtandao wa Jamii wa Usimamizi wa Misitu TanzaniaMVIWATA Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzanian Sample sizeNAPA National Adaptation Programme for ActionNCCSC National Climate Change Steering CommitteeNCCTC National Climate Change Technical CommitteeNRM Natural Resource ManagementREDD Reducing Emissions of GHG from Deforestation and forest DegradationRLDC Rural Livelihood Development CompanySO4 Strategic Objective FourSP Strategic PlanSPSS Statistical Package for Social ScienceTAWLAE Tanzania Association for Women Leaders in Agriculture and EnvironmentTFCG Tanzania Forest Conservation GroupTOAM Tanzania Organic Agriculture MovementTSH Tanzania ShillingsTV TelevisionUMIKIM Uhifadhi Misitu Kisongwe na MfuluiUMILUI Uhifadhi Misitu Lunenzi na IbinguURT United Republic of TanzaniaVADPs Village Agriculture Development PlansVEO Village Executive OfficerVPO Vice President OfficeWADP Ward Agriculture Development PlanWFT Ward Facilitation TeamWOWAP Women Wake- Up xvi
  18. 18. 1. Introduction 1.1 Background informationEmploying over 70% of Tanzanians, many of them small-scale farmers earning less than US$ 1 per day,the agriculture sector is particularly vulnerable to climate change. While climate change underminesagricultural development in low income countries like Tanzania, the fourth assessment report of theInternational Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that globally, agriculture contributes 14% of theanthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG). Agricultural practices like shifting cultivation; use of fire duringfarm preparation; use of synthetic fertilizers; forest clearance; deep tillage and livestock keeping areexamples of agricultural techniques that are commonly practiced in Tanzania and that contribute to GHGemissions. Climate change is linked with reduced crop yields, exacerbation of poverty and natural resourceconflicts as witnessed in Morogoro region. The National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) forTanzania estimated that increases in temperature and reduced rainfall as well as change in rainfall patternswill reduce the average yield of maize by up to 84% in the central region of Tanzania (URT, 2006).The Climate Change, Agriculture and Poverty Alleviation (CCAP) project is a partnership between five non-governmental organisations: Action Aid Tanzania, MJUMITA, MVIWATA, TFCG and TOAM. It includes anational level advocacy component plus site based demonstration activities in three dry land villages inChamwino District and three highland villages in Kilosa District. Funding from AcT has been committed forthe period October 2012 to December 2014.Project GoalThe goal of the climate change, agriculture and poverty alleviation project (CCAP) is that poverty has beenreduced amongst small-scale farmers in Tanzania and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture havebeen reduced through the widespread adoption of climate resilient, low emission agricultural practices.Project approach and strategyThe project will achieve its goal by advocating for Tanzania to develop and implement policies andstrategies that prioritise support to small-scale farmers to enable them to improve their livelihoods throughthe adoption of climate smart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management.This baseline study was conducted with stakeholders at national, district and village level. The surveyincluded respondents from all six project villages namely Kisongwe, Ibingu and Lunenzi in Kilosa andMahama, Nzali and Manchali A in Chamwino. In order to measure the impact of project interventions in theproject areas, the study selected Chinangali I in Chamwino and Lumbiji in Kilosa as control villages. Thestudy assessed current knowledge and practices amongst relevant stakeholders and has documented thesituations that exist in relation to project indicators.This report includes sections on the methodology, results and conclusions and recommendations. 1.2 Objectives of the studyThe terms of reference for this work are attached as Appendix I. The three objectives of the study were to: Document conditions at the start of the project in relation to the project’s indicators and priority stakeholder progress markers. Document the current knowledge of and uptake of climate smart, small-scale agriculture and other livelihood initiatives intended to increase resilience to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the six project villages. Document communication preferences for the project’s priority stakeholders. 1
  19. 19. 2. Methodology 2.1 Data collectionThe survey used both qualitative and quantitative methods including direct observations and literaturereview. The qualitative data was collected through structured and key informant interviews. These involvedadministering questionnaires to small-scale farmers (Appendix ii), MJUMITA networks (Appendix iii),MVIWATA group members (Appendix iv) and Village government members (Appendix v).Key informant interviews were conducted to ward councillors and Member of Parliaments (Appendix vi ),Districts officials (Appendix vii) whose works are directly related with climate change, conservation andagriculture (District Executive Directors, District Natural Resource Officers and District Agriculture andLivestock Development Officers). Key informant interviews were also conducted to MJUMITA andMVIWATA National Leaders (Appendix viii), community trainers (appendix x) and to the Director ofEnvironment in the Vice President’s Office (Appendix ix) who is the Chairperson of the National ClimateChange Technical Committee (NCCTC).Districts’ Agriculture Development Plans (DADPs), Districts’ annual DADP reports, MJUMITA andMVIWATA institutional strategies and District social economic profiles were reviewed to understand thecurrent situation with regards to climate change, climate smart-small scale agriculture, poverty and climatechange adaptation and mitigation in the study areas and their integration in DADPs and in MJUMITA andMVIWATA institutional strategic plans. Quantitative data were collected from project village governmentsusing village government members’ questionnaires.The study began with a review of the strategic plans for MJUMITA and MVIWATA, DADPs and DistrictSocial Economic Profiles. The survey team then collected background information on the eight villages(Appendix xii) prior to the commencement of data collection through interviews with stakeholders.The study was conducted in Kilosa and Chamwino Districts (Figure 1) in Morogoro and Dodoma regionsrespectively. Figure 1. Map showing location of Chamwino district in Dodoma and Kilosa District in Morogoro Region. Specifically the study was conducted in CCAP project villages namely Lunenzi, Ibingu, and Kisongwe villages in Kilosa (Figure 2) and Mahama, Nzali, Manchali A villages in Chamwino (Figure 3). Lumbiji and Chinangali I villages were selected as control villages in Kilosa and Chamwino respectively (Figure 2 and 3). The selection of these control villages was based on the criteria that these villages are in the same agro-ecological zone as the project villages and do not have and will not have the same project intervention during the lifetime of the project. 2
  20. 20. Figure 2. Map of Chamwino District showing location of Mahama, Nzali, Manchali and Chinangali IvillagesFigure 3. Map of Kilosa district showing location of Kisongwe, Lumbiji, Lunenzi and Ibingu villages 3
  21. 21. 2.2 Sampling strategiesIn each village the following sampling strategy was followed:  10 small-scale farmers;The selection was stratified in such a way that ten (10) names of small-scale farmers (5 men and 5 women)were written on separate pieces of paper; mixed in a box; and five names were picked from the box torepresent farmers who came from sub villages that are remotely located. In addition, six names of small-scale farmers (3 men and 3 women) who were considered to be poor (according to wealth rankingindicators in Appendix xiii) were written on separate pieces of paper; mixed in a box; and three nameswere picked from the box to represent small-scale farmers who came from the lowest wealth rank category.The same procedure was used for the remaining two farmers where for this case four names (gender wasconsidered) were used to select the remaining two farmers to make a total of 10 small-scale farmers.During this exercise, gender was considered to ensure that women constituted 50% of the selected small-scale farmers to be interviewed. The sampling population includes all farmers in the project villages andnot just those participating in the farmer field schools.  10 members of the village council (VEO, chairperson/deputy chairperson, chairpersons of two remotely located sub-villages, and two representatives from three main village committee).In villages with more than two remotely located sub-villages, in order to select the two the same procedurewas used i.e. names were written on separate pieces of paper; mixed in a box and two names were pulledout. The study also selected the chairperson and secretary of the three village sub-committees. Whenthey were not present, two members from these committees were selected by using the same proceduresas above.  10 members of MVIWATA and MJUMITA local area networks and groups (Chairperson, Secretary and 8 members of each network or groups) respectively, where such networks or groups had been established;As described above, the names of all members of the networks were placed in a box and the name of eight(8) MVIWATA and MJUMITA members were pulled out.With those criteria and sampling strategy, the study administered 199 questionnaires as follows:80 questionnaires to village council members (35 female and 45 male);80 questionnaires to small-scale farmers (39 female and 41 Male);20 questionnaires to MJUMITA networks’ members (10 female and 10 Male);and the remaining 19 questionnaires to MVIWATA groups’ members (8 female and 11 male).MJUMITA network members came from UMILUI (Uhifadhi Misitu Lunenzi na Ibingu) and UMIKIM (UhifadhiMisitu Kisongwe na Mfului) MJUMITA networks both in Kilosa. There were no MJUMITA networks in thestudy villages in Chamwino District. MVIWATA members belonged to Juhudi and Mshikamano groups inKilosa and Chamwino Districts respectively. Juhudi group was composed of five members from Kisongweand five members from Lumbiji village whereas in the case of the Mshikamano group, all 10 memberscame from Nzali village in Chamwino District as all members are in Nzali village.Overall the study interviewed 89 respondents from Chamwino and 110 from Kilosa of whom 92 werewomen and 107 were men. The list of respondents interviewed and administered questionnaires areattached in Appendix xii.The study also compiled a profile of all of the participating villages including information on population;number of sub-villages; public services available; languages spoken; radio stations available; history;economic activities; presence of micro-finance institutions; and CSO and private sector initiatives active inthe respective village (Appendix xi). 4
  22. 22. The study also documented other observations relating to activities or communication materials in the studyvillages related to small-scale agriculture, climate change and current agriculture practices.Stakeholders at District and National level were selected on the basis of their positions. 2.3 Data analysisData analysis involved the development of data entry templates in Statistical Package for Social Science(SPSS), which are essentially, versions of the data collection questionnaires. Data entry was done usingSPSS software and Microsoft Excel Spread Sheet as well as Geographic Information System (GIS)software. On completion of data entry, an in-depth analysis of the data obtained from questionnaires wasundertaken using SPSS software and excel to establish the project baseline in the study areas. Maps weredrawn using GIS. 5
  23. 23. 3. Results 3.1 General information on village-level surveys3.1.1 Age composition of respondents in Kilosa and Chamwino study villagesThe age of the respondents ranged from 20 to 85 years in Kilosa and Chamwino with the largestproportion of respondents (30% for Chamwino, Figure 4 and 39% for Kilosa, Figure 5) falling in the agerange of 41 to 50 years. Age could affect willingness to adopt new technologies. Since the project aims topromote climate smart, small-scale agriculture technologies in the project areas, it is important to take ageinto consideration when designing strategies.Figure 4. Age composition of respondents in Chamwino study villages (n = 89)Figure 5. Age composition of respondents in Kilosa study villages (n = 110) 6
  24. 24. Only 10 % of the Chamwino and 12 % of the Kilosa respondents were under 30 years (Figure 4 and Figure5) as the study focused on respondents at the household level and in most cases it was either the head ofthe household or the wife of the head of the household who was interviewed. This was due to the fact thatmost farmers in the villages who are still living with their parents do not own their own farms.3.1.2 Education level of respondentsThe baseline study indicated that 88% (n = 89) of the respondents in Chamwino had attended school whilst12% of them had not attained any formal education (Figure 6). Most of respondents who went to schoolhad primary education (82%) and the remaining 6% had secondary education (Figure 6.) Adult education Tertiary Education 0% No formal 0% Education 12% Secondary Education 6% Primary Education 82%Figure 6. Education composition of the respondents in Chamwino study villages (n = 89)In Kilosa, 93% (n = 110) of the respondents had attended school whilst 7% of them had not attended anyformal education. For those who attended school, 89% of them had primary education, 1% had secondaryeducation, 2% had adult education and another 1% had tertiary education (College education) as seen inFigure 7. Adult education Tertiary Education 2% No formal Secondary 1% Education Education 7% 1% Primary Education 89%Figure 7. Education compositions of the respondents in Kilosa study villages (n = 110) 7
  25. 25. The comparison of three villages in Chamwino with same number of respondents (n =20) showed thatManchali A had a higher number of respondents (20%) who had not attended school compared to Mahama(15%) and Chinangali I (0%) villages (Table 1). Similarly Chinangali I village had respondents who hadsecondary education (10%) amongst the three compared villages. None of these three villages hadrespondents with tertiary education.Table 1. Comparison of education level of three villages in Chamwino (n = 20 for each village) Education levelVillages No formal education Primary education Secondary education Tertiary education Adult educationMahama 15% 85% 0% 0% 0%Manchali A 20% 80 0% 0% 0%Chinangal I 0% 90% 10% 0% 0%Similarly, the comparison of three villages in Kilosa with the same number of respondents (n= 25) revealedthat Lunenzi village had the most respondents (16%) who had not attended any formal school as comparedto Ibingu and Lumbiji that had no respondents with no education (Table 2). Ibingu and Lumbiji hadrespondents who had attended secondary school and it was only Lumbiji village that had one respondentwith tertiary education (Table 2). Most respondents in the three villages had primary education (Table 2).Table 2. Comparison of education level of three villages in Kilosa (n = 25 for each village) Education levelVillages No formal education Primary education Secondary education Tertiary education Adult educationIbingu 0% 96% 4% 0% 0%Lumbiji 0% 88% 8% 4% 0%Lunenzi 16% 84% 0% 0% 0%The study also found that of the 42 women who were interviewed in Chamwino, 12% of them had no formaleducation (Figure 8). Eighty three per cent (83%) of the women had primary education and 5% of them hadsecondary education. They study also found that none of the women had tertiary or adult education. InKilosa, 88% (n = 50) of women who were interviewed had primary education whilst 12% of them had noformal education (Figure 9). None of the women interviewed had secondary, tertiary or adult education.Figure 8. Education level of the interviewed female in Chamwino study villages (n = 42) 8
  26. 26. Figure 9. Education level of the interviewed women in Kilosa study villages (n = 50)Of the 59 men who were interviewed in Kilosa, 3% of them had no formal education. Of the 97% educatedinterviewed males, 90% of them had primary education, 2% of them also had secondary education whilethe remaining 5% had tertiary or other adult education (Figure 10).Figure 10. Education level to the interviewed male in Kilosa study villages (n = 59)The study found that of the 48 men, who were interviewed in Chamwino, 13% of them had not attendedany formal education; 81% of them had primary education only and the remaining 6% of them also havesecondary education (Figure 11) 9
  27. 27. Figure 11.Education level of the interviewed male in Chamwino study villages (n = 48)There were more respondents with no formal education in Lunenzi and Manchali A Villages. This reflectsthe absence of a school in these villages. Currently pupils in Lunenzi village walk to Ibingu primary schoolto access education. This situation discourages some pupils as they reported during our discussions. Onthe other hand, the low number of respondents who attended secondary school is linked with the absenceof secondary schools in the study villages. Even for those villages with secondary schools, these schoolshave only been established recently. The low education level is plausibly associated with poor access ofthese communities to education.3.1.3 Respondents’ economic activitiesAlthough some of the respondents are involved in business as one of their economic activities, the majorityof respondents both in Kilosa (n = 109) and Chamwino (n = 90) districts depend on agriculture as the majoreconomic activities to sustain their lives (Figure 12 and Figure 13). Figure 12 below shows that agricultureonly is the most practiced economic activity in Kilosa for 55% of the respondents followed by agricultureand business with 36% of the respondents and business only (9%). 60% 50% Percentage of responses of 40% econmic activities repsondents on 30% 20% 10% 0% Agriculture Agriculture and business Business Economic activitiesFigure 12 Economic activities of respondents in Chamwino study villages (n = 90) 10
  28. 28. In Kilosa, Figure 13 indicates that 67 % of respondents are primarily dependent on agriculture; 24 % areengaged in business and agriculture; and 9 % are engaged in business only. 80% 70% Percentage responses of respondents 60% on economic activities 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Agriculture Agriculture and business Business Economic activitiesFigure 13. Economic activities of the respondents in Kilosa study villages (n = 109)Table 3 shows different kinds of business that are being conducted by those respondents in the studyvillages who reported to be involved in business. Selling alcohol was the most frequently cited businessamongst the respondents in the study villages. Owning and running cafes and selling firewood were alsocited frequently.Table 3. Businesses practiced by respondents in the study villages Ibingu Kisongwe** Lumbiji** Lunenzi** Chinangali I* Mahama* Manchali A Nzali* n=3 n = 16 n=4 n=9 n=8 n=9 n=6 n = 11Beekeeping 0% 6% 25% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0%Carpentry 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0%Kiosk 0% 0% 25% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0%Café 33% 25% 0% 22% 50% 11% 0% 18%SellingAlcohol 33% 38% 50% 56% 25% 44% 33% 45%Selling Crops 0% 31% 0% 11% 0% 22% 67% 9%SellingFirewood 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 18%Selling Fruits 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9%3.1.4 Main crops grown by small-scale farmersLocated in a national ‘grain basket’ region (Morogoro), Kilosa district is a nationally important source ofmaize (Mwakalinga,2007). Amongst the 40 small-scale farmers who were interviewed in Kilosa, they growa mix of maize, beans, sunflower, cassava, millet, groundnuts, banana, sweet potatoes, cowpeas, and rice(Figure 14). The most frequently cited crops were maize, beans and cassava as the main crops grown inKilosa study villages. 11
  29. 29. 100% Percentage of small- scale farmers on the crops 80% 60% grown 40% 20% 0% CropsFigure 14. Crops grown by farmers in Kilosa study villages (n = 40)The 40 farmers who were interviewed in Chamwino are involved in different combinations of Maize,Sunflower and Cassava, Millet, Pigeon Pea, Groundnuts, Sesame, Cow Peas and Peanuts production.Maise, groundnuts, millet, sunflower and sesame production were the most frequently cited (Figure 15). 90% Percentage of small-scale farmers on the crop 80% 70% 60% 50% grown 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CropsFigure 15. Crops grown by farmers in Chamwino study villages (n = 40) 12
  30. 30. Figures 14 and 15 show that the farmers interviewed in Chamwino (n = 40) grow more drought resistantcrops like sunflowers, groundnuts, millet and sesame as compared to Kilosa (n = 40) who grow more maizeand beans crops that are known to be less drought resistant (Temu et al. 2011). This is also substantiatedby small scale famers’ response on whether they grow drought resistant crop whereby 78 % of theChamwino farmers stated that they do whilst only 38 % of the farmers in Kilosa stated that they do (Table 5and Table 6). This perhaps is due to location of Chamwino district that is in Central Plateau zone (villagesare in zone P2), an agricultural zone that has a savannah type of climate characterised by long dry seasons(Blinker, 2006) as compared with Kilosa districts located in Eastern Plateaux and mountain blocks (villagesare in zone H7), the zone in most cases that favours less drought resistant crops (see figure 16 for theTanzania agro-ecological zones). Figure 16. Agro-Ecological Zones of Tanzania (Source: Blinker, 2006) 13
  31. 31. 3.2 Baseline situation of project’s indicators and priority stakeholder progress markers3.2.1 Baseline situation of project indicatorsIn order to monitor the progress and impact of the CCAP project, implementing partners have developedindicators. Different stakeholders were interviewed in order to assess the situation at the start of the projectfor each indicator. The results of interviews with different stakeholders are presented below in relation toeach of the project’s indicators.Intermediate objective Tanzania has developed and is implementing policies and strategies that prioritisesupport to small-scale farmers to enable them to improve their livelihoods through the adoption of climatesmart agriculture and sustainable land and natural resources management.Intermediate Objective Indicator 1: Districts are receiving and distributing resources to support small-scale farmers to adopt more climate smart agriculture.The results of interviews with local government staff, village leaders and farmers are presented below inrelation to Intermediate Objective Indicator 1.ChamwinoDistrict staff stated that during the 2011/2012 financial year, Chamwino district received support from theFood and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) to support improved water use efficiencythrough rehabilitation and establishment of irrigation schemes. The support also involved support for anagriculture voucher scheme amounting to 64 million TSH for 400 farmers at 160,000 TSH per each farmer.The vouchers were provided for free to farmers from Msasa, Chalinze, Makoje and Bwigiri villages. Amongother things farmers from these villages bought macia seeds, a variety of sorghum that is known to bemature early. Since these villages were not among the study villages, it was not easy to verify thisinformation at the village level.Based on a review of the 2012-2013 Chamwino DADP, it was noted that the plan aims to implement theAgricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) focusing on a transformation from subsistence tocommercial agriculture. The implication is for policy and public expenditure to be a means of inducingprivate sector investment in the agricultural sector. The plan highlights that small-scale farmers areempowered through improvement of youth and women access to productive resources and incomegenerating activities. The District mentioned that small –scale farmers are supported through provision ofsubsidized macia variety (sorghum). Farmers buy a kilogram (kg) of these seeds at 800 TSH and some aregiven on credit whereby if a farmer is given one kilogram (kg) he/she has to return two kilograms so that itcan be distributed to others. Although the district is supporting famers to adopt more climate smartagriculture as exemplified above, the magnitude of this support is very low to bring an impact at the districtlevel.It was mentioned that in the last financial year the district was implementing DADP project in Chinangali II,Mvumi Mission and Mvumi Makulu villages. The study villages were not among the DADP supportedvillages. The Chamwino DADP addresses some of the C3S agriculture techniques and practices includingpromotion of ox-driven tillage and weeding practices; use of climate resilient seed varieties and dripirrigation.KilosaThe 2012-2013 Kilosa DADP aims to ensure food security and to increase per capital income emanatingfrom increased productivity of the agricultural sector in Kilosa district. The plan focuses on the constructionof reservoirs and irrigation schemes for the development of paddy rice as this has been identified to be themost promising crop for the district. For example, the district is building irrigation ditches that are directed tofarmers’ field. Currently, these projects are intended to benefit farmers in five villages: Lumuma, Mvumi, 14
  32. 32. Ilonga, Mwasa and Chanjale villages. A total of 600 million Tanzania shillings were allocated for theseprojects in 2012 in the DADP. The project villages will not benefit from these investments.Through reviewing the Kilosa DADP the study found that it has an Environmental and Social ManagementFramework (ESMF) for individual projects to take measures that safeguard environmental and social issuesduring project implementation. The ESMF is for larger projects like tractor introduction, building of cropmarkets and crop storage houses, production of best paddy seeds, and construction of irrigation schemes.Small scale measures initiatives are not addressed in the plan.The plan is focused on shifting to commercial mechanized agriculture through promoting use of tractorsand power tillers. This is likely to lead to increased GHG emissions. Tree planting and forest conservationmitigation measures that are put forward by the DADP ESMF is disputed by a small number of villageleaders (30%) who reported to have been supported by the district to mitigate and adapt to climate changeimpacts. Agriculture practices that protect environment and support small-scale farmers are not fullyaddressed in the plan. Small- scale farmers will not be the main beneficiaries for the irrigation schemes thatare mainly targeted to medium and large scale farmers.Initiatives that are aimed at empowering small-scale farmers include: promotion of community based seedsproduction (maize, paddy, sorghum, sesame, sunflower and wheat), reduction of crop field losses byfarmers through purchasing of chemicals to control quelea quelea. The plan also intends to establish farmfield schools in which 59 are for crops and 11 for livestock. The DADP also targeted resettlement of 172small-scale farmers who were living and cultivating in catchment areas. In its district DADP reports, theKilosa district reports that it was able to shift 172 farmers who were living and cultivationg on catchmentaeas of Tundu, Ruaha and Kifinga villages to lowland areas of Mkangawalo whereby it provided farmerswith 4 hectare each.Delay of fund disbursement and having few field officers compared to area of implementation (i.e. numberof villages to number of village extension officers) is mentioned to be amongst the major constraints foreffective DADP implementation. For example, the Kilosa district officials said they normally prepare abudget for the proceeding year in April and it is supposed to be received at the district at the end of July.But this has not been the case as they normally receive the funds in November. Of current they have notreceived the 2012/2013 budget to implement the plan that was planned in April 2012. On the other hand,they admitted that currently at the district they are only 15 staff for agriculture sub-department and only 7staffs for livestock sub-department with 132 extension officers in the villages.At the village levelDuring this baseline survey, some of the village leaders from both Kilosa and Chamwino study villagesrevealed that they have been at least receiving some support to adapt to climate change from the district(Figure 17). 15

×